Clean Coal?

I just responded to a piece on the same subject under the blog section: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/8590

I think Clean Coal is political and CO₂ sequestration, well I have already written extensively on in the reference.

If there is plenty of space for the power plant, a solution could be to reduce exhaust gas temperature to where water can scrub the CO2 out.

The enriched water would then be used to grow algae which can be used to produce oil.

It might be better to scrub the CO2 out of a hotter exhaust using chemicals which can be regenerated and the waste CO2 stream used for the algae growth.

This sort of approach could be used in Australia, where we generally don't have drastic restrictions on available space for a new power station, but the large amount of real estate needed for algae ponds may be a problem in eg Europe.

Underground CO2 will be expensive, raising power generation costs drastically, with consequent social costs which will probably prove to be unacceptable (large scale contraction of industry with consequent job losses to mention only the most obvious).

At least if we store CO2 underground, we can release it when the global temp starts dropping and the cry goes up "another ice age is imminent".

Growing algae with the power plant exhaust CO2 is basis of the algae growth already being practised by Green-Fuel Technology, and the company has implemented (or about to implement) it in Europe. However, that technology does not contribute to remediation of the GHG effects, as can be elicited with a Life Cycle Analysis.

I agree with the acelerated algae growth. The sure would be a lot of it. Using the term "clean coal" sounds much like "dirty soap".

"Is underground storage of CO2 in any way practical...." Of course it is. Storage could be much the same as helium storage, crude oil storage, on in massive tanks or containers. It would be interesting, plus possibly a Global Warming controller, to store CO2 as Dry Ice in massive amounts. The depletion of CO2 from the atmosphere and seas could have a significant effect on Global Warming. Store the Dry Ice until some bright chemist finds a cheap and efficient way to use solar energy to break CO2 down into solid carbon (for storage) and oxygen!!

Would the price per kilo of co2 stored be practical?

Would the co2 actually stay underground for 100's or thousands of years

Wouldn't converting to a solid form be a more permanant solution?

Well, the technology for stripping carbon from carbon dioxide already exists, as I had written before [Please refer to my post # 1 ] I had stated that there are two technologies by which the treatment of carbon dioxide could be made:
<QUOTE>
In fact we have also addressed this concern by suggesting the remediation of the GHG gases released into the atmosphere and or the recovery of the GHG gases from the atmosphere. In the first case we are suggesting the actual removal of the carbon from the atmosphere, while in the second case we are suggesting the use of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere into making methanol that can be used in the preparation of biodiesel and other chemical substances.
</QUOTE>

So we really do not need a chemist to come along someday, society can do so even now.

you need a class in thermo and theory of gases. a single power plant would fill up all our crude oil tanks in two years, a single plant. Next where will you get the energy to make that much dry ice, it would consume 50% of the power plants output.

I think that the vast majarity of people do not understand the what coal is or even how we get electricity in the first place. They certainly don't understand how CO2 is formed and transformed. Coal does have impurities. So does oil. To separate the impurities we use heat (thermal depolymerization) to refine. This process can be seen by simply lighting a match. The gases burn and one of the results is CO2. All animal breath out CO2. We will never get rid of it.

I personally think that storage of CO2 is one of those idea that could work in reverse later. It's like putting toxins in barrels and buring them. Then years later someone finds them and then we have a "Love Channal"

I think plants are our answer to CO2. Without CO2 they die, and without plants we die. Wheather it's trees or algea ... who knows. I personally believe we need to plant more trees. The boreal forest for instance transforms so much CO2 back into O2 that it actually changes the composition of the air of the world. That in itself should be a hint. God has shown us the what we need to do.

I do think we need to change the way we get our energy to use renewable energy sources, what even they may be. Air, water, the sun and even nucelar.

Add geothermal and hydrothermal to that list and I agree wholeheartedly. Also, it has been shown that algae are responsible for ~70% of all O2 regeneration on the planet.

However, having spent 15 yrs in coal research and fuel technology I know that clean coal is a practical solution. It is just a matter of economics. Coal gasoline has been available for ~60 yrs. And removal and storage of CO2 has been studied for at least 35 yrs. I personally believe that now is the time to develop new energy efficient solutions to our problems, I just dont believe that the current approaches hold much promise and will be very expensive. A more gradual, measured approach to fund good solid scientifically viable methods of energy generation (rather than the GHG crowds waving their arms at politicians) should be considered. Most of the people pushing for legislation against coal dont have a solid scientific background and so are easily conned by the supposed experts like the man who invented everything (ie: Al Gore).

The company I work for now helps other companies design aboveground equipment for CO2 wells so it definitely exists, is practical, and is possible. CO2 is used where possible as an oil field flooding agent to increase oil production in nearly "depleted" wells. Usually it takes a lot of horsies to get the CO2 up to pressure so it can be pushed underground. The fuel generated in this process (a mix of H2 and CO) isn't the greatest fuel in the whole-wide world either, in fact I would say that it sucks.

This technology cannot compete with current generation technologies on a cost basis, therefore the government will either subsidize the tar out of it or effectively tax "dirtier" technologies to make it competitive.